"If the string of text can help to identify a person, it is personal data for GDPR."
can you show me an example of a string of text that can help identify a person? I've never seen any large language model do that.
Have you not seen the majority's opinion in that case? there's some misconception that they did it based on groove of feeling.
"Our decision does not grant license to copyright a musical style or ‘groove.’ Nor does it upset the balance Congress struck between the freedom of artistic expression, on the one hand, and copyright protection of the fruits of that expression, on the other hand. Rather, our decision hinges on settled procedural principles and the limited nature of our appellate review, dictated by the particular posture of this case and controlling copyright law. Far from heralding the end of musical creativity as we know it, our decision, even construed broadly, reads more accurately as a cautionary tale for future trial counsel wishing to maximize their odds of success.”
"Besides if your student copies a paper your write and publishes is as their paper, you can sue?"
only if it's a exact copy and they're saying it's theirs.
"Opponents of generative AI are already arguing for that. In the recently amended complaint of Andersen et al. v. Stability AI et al. the plaintiffs argue that their artistic styles represent “trade dress” and are therefore protectable as informal trademarks or something roughly to that effect."
https://www.comicmix.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/51-Order-on-Second-MTD.pdf
didn't a judge rule that styles cannot be trademarked?
Lawmakers response to generative AI is so mind-bogglingly stupid that it looks like I'm living in a satirical universe. Their response is looking more and more like thought control.
"since anyone could do anything they want with your work."
true with your work, the difference here is that ai-generated outputs isn't considered your work.
"the law at the very least does distinguish between humans and the usage of AI tools"
The law also distinguishes between a camera and a photographer too but doesn't attempt to ban cameras.
Who were the Luddites? They sure as fuck weren’t tech-hating loom smashers. They were weavers who knew that the rich were gonna replace them with child labor.
are you fucking stupid?
they weren't replaced with child labor, you got your history all fucked up.
A Terms of Service isn’t the most legally enforceable thing, but we can start from there.
I'm sorry but a terms of services can't add new rights beyond which you were given legally.
Because 1A also involves the right to associate, and there’s people who publicly have said they do not want their art to be used in Machine Learning models.
That has literally nothing to do with 1A.
And which rights are that?
Copyright Law has it that you don't 100% of your art, you don't own the color, if someone else uses your color you can't say "Hey! you're stealing my colors" and you can't do the same thing with styles or any element of the art.
You're claiming copyright over the elements in your art which anyone can legally use as long as it doesn't copy the overall tangible expression.
Do you have any evidence that livelihood will be destroyed?
https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2022/article/growth-trends-for-selected-occupations-considered-at-risk-from-automation.htm
Statements like "livelihoods are likely to be destroyed" are impressionist than reality.
"There is little support in U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data or projections for the idea of a general acceleration of job loss."
"If the string of text can help to identify a person, it is personal data for GDPR." can you show me an example of a string of text that can help identify a person? I've never seen any large language model do that.
well actually small quantized language model can work on some modern smartphones. I remember some people running LLaMA-2 on android phones.
"The judge in Gaye vs Thicke would very much beg to differ."
Have you not seen the majority's opinion in that case? there's some misconception that they did it based on groove of feeling. "Our decision does not grant license to copyright a musical style or ‘groove.’ Nor does it upset the balance Congress struck between the freedom of artistic expression, on the one hand, and copyright protection of the fruits of that expression, on the other hand. Rather, our decision hinges on settled procedural principles and the limited nature of our appellate review, dictated by the particular posture of this case and controlling copyright law. Far from heralding the end of musical creativity as we know it, our decision, even construed broadly, reads more accurately as a cautionary tale for future trial counsel wishing to maximize their odds of success.”
but if they're quoting from it, I won't sue.
maybe but people can usually quote entire paragraphs right?
"Besides if your student copies a paper your write and publishes is as their paper, you can sue?" only if it's a exact copy and they're saying it's theirs.
second reply to Nihiltres comment
multiple courts have ruled that style cannot be trademarked or copyrighted.
reply to Nihiltres comment
"Opponents of generative AI are already arguing for that. In the recently amended complaint of Andersen et al. v. Stability AI et al. the plaintiffs argue that their artistic styles represent “trade dress” and are therefore protectable as informal trademarks or something roughly to that effect." https://www.comicmix.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/51-Order-on-Second-MTD.pdf didn't a judge rule that styles cannot be trademarked?
Copyright Expansion
Any expansion of copyright would include Hollywood, of course they would be affected.
Funny Lawmakers
Lawmakers response to generative AI is so mind-bogglingly stupid that it looks like I'm living in a satirical universe. Their response is looking more and more like thought control.
except it's not slightly it's enough that nobody on earth could tell if they wrote it or not.
"since anyone could do anything they want with your work." true with your work, the difference here is that ai-generated outputs isn't considered your work.
"the law at the very least does distinguish between humans and the usage of AI tools" The law also distinguishes between a camera and a photographer too but doesn't attempt to ban cameras.
no Fair Use Needed.
Just one problem, every fair use case requires infringement to be found first, there's no substantial similarity to even require a fair use case.
Do you have any evidence for this? I'm hearing alot of screaming and some minor events that you learned from the news.
Do you have any evidence that livelihood will be destroyed? https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2022/article/growth-trends-for-selected-occupations-considered-at-risk-from-automation.htm Statements like "livelihoods are likely to be destroyed" are impressionist than reality. "There is little support in U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data or projections for the idea of a general acceleration of job loss."
"This will replace human creativity!" - 18th century, invention of the camera.